Control Number : Item Number : 10. Addendum StartPage : 0. ii..

Transcription

1 Control Number : Item Number : 10 Addendum StartPage : 0 ii..

2 k. q SOAH DOCKET NO DOCKET NO COMPLAINT OF DENNIS DRURY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISS^^^i AGAINST TRIEAGLE ENERGY AND ONCOR ELECTRIC OF TEXAS DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC Pt; ^3,^ TRIEAGLE ENERGY'S LIST OF ISSUES IN RESPONSE TO ORDER OF REFERRAL TriEagle Energy ("TriEagle") respectfully submits its List of Issues in response to the Order of Referral. 1. BACKGROUND AND UPDATE This complaint case involves a claim that Oncor Electric Delivery Company ("Oncor") wrongly levied a transmission cost recovery factor ("TCRF") to retail electric providers, including TriEagle, and that TriEagle improperly assessed the TCRF to Mr. Drury. TriEagle served Mr. Drury, starting on July 6, 2012, under a 12-month contract for a fixed, bundled price (i.e. the fixed retail price included commodity and the then-existing levels of non-bypassable charges).' After TriEagle began providing service under this contract, the Commission approved Oncor's TCRF application. The TCRF took effect on September 1, TriEagle began flowing through the TCRF to Mr. Drury beginning with his October 16, 2013 invoice, under a separate line item entitled "TDU Delivery Charges."3 Mr. Drury contends that Oncor improperly applied the TCRF and TriEagle improperly assessed it to his invoices.4 He points to a statement TriEagle allegedly made on the Power to 1 TriEagle Response at 2 (July 1, 2013). 2 Petition of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLCfor Administrative Approval of Transmission Cost Recovery Factor Update Pursuant to SUBST. R , Docket No , Final Order at 1 and 4(November 19, 2012). See also Order No. 3 (July 16, 2012)(approving TCRF on an interim basis effective September 1, 2012). 3 TriEagle Response at 1, and Att. I (the invoice contained additional explanation: "The Public Utility Commission of Texas has authorized your local `wires' company, ONCOR, to significantly increase the Transmission Cost Recovery Factor that they charge you to service your meter beginning September 1, The increase in these charges are in the above line item `TDU Delivery Charges."') 4 Drury Formal Complaint at 1(June 7, 2013)(" the PUC of Texas illegally allowed the ONCOR, wires, company to invoice me for a TDU charge thru TriEagle Energy company that was effectuated beginning in September, 2012 and presented for payment.") 1 l0

3 Choose website that TriEagle's service would contain "NO extra AMS meter charges,"5 and he contends that this means that TriEagle's retail price should contain the entirety of all utility delivery charges, of whatever nature and whenever incurred.6 Mr. Drury also complains that Oncor's TCRF charge is invalid.7 TriEagle assessed the TCRF to Mr. Drury pursuant to its Terms of Service, which provide in 2.7: "REGULATORY CHANGES TO PRICE. If new or changes in tariffs, rates, riders, fees, and customer load profile(s), charged or authorized by the TDSP, ERCOT, PUCT, or another party with respect to the acquisition, sale, delivery, and purchase of the electricity will increase the cost to TriEagle for performance of this Agreement, TriEagle Energy may pass through such regulatory increases to the Customer at cost. "8 Mr. Drury also executed a "Residential Electric Agreement" with TriEagle, which contains a consistent provision allowing TriEagle to pass through these types of costs: Any new or changes in tariffs, rates, riders, fees, and customer load profile(s), charged or authorized by the TDSP, ERCOT, PUCT, or another party with respect to the acquisition, sale, delivery, and purchase of the electricity. The economic impact of any such changes shall be passed-through to the Customer at cost.9 TriEagle's Electric Facts Label also allows it to assess such pass through charges. It provides (in question and answer form): "If my price can change, how will it change and by how much? " "The overall price can change to incorporate changes in regulatory charges or law and as may otherwise be permitted by the Public Utility Commission of Texas rules "10 II. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED As Staff's Statement of Position suggested, Mr. Drury's Complaint fails to raise any material issues and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.l l TriEagle reserves the 5 Id. 6 Id. ("I believe that this [no extra AMS charges] is the total of the meter charges for the delivery of electricity to my home, not in part but inclusive of the whole delivery charge that should be assessed for my electric meter.") ' Id. at 5("I don't agree with the PUC of Texas granting rate increases to the ONCOR, wires, company on a percentage basis and conducting this behind closed doors, out of sight of the general public.") 8 See TriEagle Response Att. E (Terms of Service), 2.7 (native document page 2 of 7). 9 Id., Att. H( (c) under "Pricing"). 10 Id., Att. C. " Staffs Statement of Position at

4 right to file at a later time an appropriate motion for summary decision or to dismiss. Without waiving such rights, and should the Commission not dismiss Mr. Drury's complaint, TriEagle identifies the following issues to be addressed: 1. Whether TriEagle properly assessed the disputed charges to Mr. Drury under Commission rules, the TriEagle Terms of Service, Residential Electric Agreement, and Electric Facts Label. 2. Whether Mr. Drury has stated a proper claim for relief under PURA and Commission Rules. III. THRESHOLD LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES TriEagle is not aware of any specific legal or policy issues that the Commission should consider in this proceeding. IV. ISSUES NOT TO ADDRESS The Commission should exclude the following issue from consideration in this proceeding: 1. Whether Oncor's TCRF charge was a valid and legal non-bypassable charge. As noted earlier, the Commission approved the charge pursuant to authority under PURA (d) and (a), and in accordance with PUC SUBST. R No basis exists to conclude that the Commission did not properly follow its procedures. Even so, Mr. Drury may not collaterally attack the Commission's final order granting the TCRF in this proceeding. Nor do any grounds exist to conclude that Oncor did not levy the TCRF in accordance with law. The Commission therefore should not address this issue. V. CONCLUSION TriEagle therefore requests that the Commission include the issues it has identified herein in its Preliminary Order. 3

5 Respectfully Submitted, By: CL- Ll", Chris Reeder State Bar No Husch Blackwell L:LP formerly Brown McCarroll, LLP 111 Congress Ave., Suite 1400 Austin, TX Telephone: Telecopier: Certificate of Service ATTORNEYS FOR TRIEAGLE ENERGY I certify that a copy of this document was served on all parties of record in this proceeding on July 23, 2013, by electronic mail, regular mail, facsimile transmission or handdelivery. C9, Chris Reeder 4